JOHN K:

But back to my original point:

It seems to me that the Apostolic Churches need to get together when thse types of issues come up. By working out different stances apart, we come up against obstacles to finding that unity desired by the Lord. Rome put out its first statement many years prior to JP2's statement of 1994. The Anglicans started to move in the complete opposite direction in 1974 with the--at that time--illegal ordination of women in the United States. The Orthodox Church in Russia stated at that time that this would end any serious dialogue with the end of unity in mind. And now His Eminence seems to open the issue again.

Maybe I am reading all this incorrectly--and that is quite possible. But it seems to me that we already have two completely opposite theological points of view in play with the two sides already dug in.

So my point is that the study of these issues needs to proceed together before we get farther apart.

BOB

Shlomo Bob,

I have one question for you. Do you see the Anglican Church as an Apostolic Church? Your post inplies you do, but I wish to make sure.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Yuhannon,

If I may jump in here, it's not Bob who is implying this, but Bishop Kallistos, simply by attending the Lambeth Conference. Also, the ROC statement from 1974 that the Anglicans' allowing women's ordination "would end any serious dialogue with the end of unity in mind," clearly implies that such serious dialogue was happening prior to that.

It's interesting that some within the EOC seem to feel closer to the Anglican communion than to the RCC.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

The Anglican Communion gives different statements to different audiences. When in dialogue with Rome, they talk about Sacred Tradition and Papal Infallibility; when with the Eastern or Oriental Orthodox, they talk about Conciliarity and the Councils; when with the protestants they claim to be protestant -- they behave as all things to all people... I wouldn't be surprised if some in the EOC felt closer to the Anglicans, at least to the Anglicans they speak to, since they, like chameleons, are excellent at blending in with their surroundings.

Metropolitan Kallistos enjoys telling this one. Back in the nineteen-thirties, there was a small but high-level Orthodox delegation visiting the Church of England, who were taken to High Mass at All Saints, Margaret Street, in London (this church was for a long time the highest of High Churches in the London area). The Orthodox were duly impressed, and they were particularly pleased by the exceptional good quality of the incense - so please, in fact, that the Orthodox offered their compliments on the incense to the Pastor.

The Pastor, feeling an obligation to be honest, felt that he should speak the truth and told the Orthodox guests that many Anglican Churches use no incense at all.

The Orthodox were startled but interested by that information, and inquired: "Really? Whatever do they use instead?"

Fr. Serge

All Saints was my favourite Church growing up, I used to swap masses from St mary's bourne street and all saints.

Yuhannon:

Me? Believe that the Anglican Communion is an Apostolic Church? No, not at all, especially after studying the Anglican Communion and its practice(s).

But the simple fact is that the Anglican Communion has been trying to portray itself as such long enough that it almost seems necessary to engage it in the ongoing dialogue on these issues. There are so many, even in the Catholic Church, who think that somehow Anglicans are "just like us but without the Pope."

I think that the inclusion of the Anglican Communion in a common study of these issues will do a few things that will help clarify what is and what is not an Apostolic Church. First of all, the parameters of Tradition in the area of what it is we believe about the Eucharist and, flowing from it, Orders needs to be clarified. And by that I mean also what is not included. For me, simply, Reformation theology is incompatible with the Apostolic Deposit of Faith. We have an unbloody anamnesis of the Bloody Sacrifice of Calvary in which we are plunged into the Lord's Saving Passion and participate in it. Orders presumes a sacrificing priesthood--something that the Reformation rejects out of hand in most quarters. The Anglican Communion describes what it does in this area with every term from Liturgy/Mass to Communion Service and everyone who participates can bring his own interpretation to his participation (and everyone is typically invited to participate simply if they are baptised). Beyond this Eucharistic ambiguity, the Anglican Communion's "comprehensiveness" is something that is incompatible with Tradition. It wasn't for nothing that the Church in the first millenium excommunicated those who didn't toe the line on doctrine and practice. The purity of the Faith and the preservation of that purity is an awesome responsibility. Nowhere can I find that the early Church succumbed to every twist and turn of the culture around her. While we can admit that there were ongoing struggles to define many issues in the first millenium, I don't find the sustained rejection of so many theological points or practices as the Reformation communities hold in that earlier era. It seems to me, when comparing the Anglican Communion to the Apostolic Churches, that one cannot include every possible doctrine, practice, and interpretation without at some point standing for nothing. So while engaging the Anglican Communion, it seems to me that we clarify for ourselves and for them what an Apostolic Church looks like then and now. And it should lead us all to conclude that, try as they might, the Anglican Communion cannot make that claim.

When I take a look at the Apostolic Churches, take a look at their practice, take a look at the Liturgy--the prayers expressed and the reverence shown, I see the common thread of our shared, though now broken, patrimony. We may differ in administrative areas--in how we go about dealing with each other once we've finished the Liturgy; we may differ in how we explain what and how our encounter with the Lord is--this Mystery is pretty hard to get a handle on, though no one would ever say it's nothing but symbolic. But we're all grapplng with the same Mystery. I argue that the Reformation, with its sola scriptura error and reaction to the Church of its age, has thrown out the baby with the bath water. A study of the expressed theology within the service books of any Apostolic Church shows very similar faith in practice. I argue that the Anglican Communion does not express the same faith or practice.

In Christ,

BOB

Love the story of the old Irish altar server who awaited the arrival of the priest in the sacristy of a ship's chapel many years ago before English was heard in the Latin liturgy. Unknown to him, the priest who arrived was Anglican. The server helped him vest and accompanied him to the altar steps where he knelt to make his responses. He heard, "In the name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost". A bit shocked he responded, "Amen". And then he heard, "I will go to the altar of God". He looked up at the vested clergyman and simply responded, "Like hell you will!"

The more polite response is "Sure, and you'll go alone!"

Fr. Serge

Not that the Irish aren't polite, but t'other response is a wee bit more Irish as you and I might know. Ah..."qui laetificat juventutem meum!"